Thursday, 29 May 2008

"When money looks like flying out of the window, love walks out the door." What a poetic statement. It’s enough to make you well up. You could almost mistake it for an Amy Winehouse lyric used in a Cambridge university English exam, if you didn’t read it carefully and discover it was actually from Sandra Davis, head of Mishcon de Reya, one of the country’s leading legal firms.

And that she was talking about a rush of trophy wives looking to get out of their marriages before their husbands are hung out to dry by the investment banks they work for.

City wives are rushing to divorce court for their slice of the cake before their husbands are hung out to dry.

Who said romance was dead? Ms Davis, it would seem. The economy may be about to bust, but business for divorce lawyers is booming. "Redundancies are still only being whispered about in the big city," she told a newspaper at the weekend, "but… we have never been busier with stay-at-home spouses asking what their options are."

Proving her point, one such woman blogged on a city website that she had no time for bankers who moaned about their financial woes. "How typical that they just think of themselves!" she wrote, presumably from the comfort of her £3 million townhouse, not paid for by her sitting on her bottom all day, doing absolutely nothing at all.

"How about the impact on their wives? Most of us didn’t sign up to share every waking minute with a down-on-his-luck egotist who spends his days moping around with a pitiful hang-dog expression and constantly relives past 'glories' in a feeble effort to retain what little self-respect he seems to have left."

As much as I disapprove of the state-sanctioned financial bum-raping in store for any man - be he a factory-worker or stockbroker - who is getting divorced, I can't feel complete sympathy for men who married after about 1990, when all but a blind simpleton couldn't fail to grasp the fact that a man getting married is basically throwing his financial future and security into a furnace.

Women - as they themselves make fucking clear by every damn word that spews from their mouths, by every sodding bile they spill regularly in the 'lifestyle' sections of daily newspapers - care for nothing but money. A man is money and/or potential money. To be spent by her, on her. He is a walking cash-machine, a Pension Plan. If said Man stops earning money, then he is to be ditched. If it is more lucrative for wifey to ditch and fuck over hubby then wifey will ditch him, fuck him over then ditch and fuck him over and over some more until the previously top-hatted sucker that she once declared before an altar (whilst sniggering internally) that she would be with 'for richer or for poorer' is basically left living in a cardboard box; very much poorer whilst she is far richer than she deserves to be.

Don't take the article's author's condemnation too seriously; despite claiming otherwise, she clearly is pissed off that she's not in a position to divorce some rich idiot and take him to the cleaners.

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Lesbian couples and single women won landmark parental rights tonight, as the House of Commons voted to remove the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child’s need for a father.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will replace the rule with a “need for supportive parenting”, after two amendments that would have restored the original clauses were defeated by unexpectedly wide margins.

While the Government had been prepared for defeat, it won the free votes by majorities of 75 and 68.

The decisions mean that the legislation will grant the most significant extention to homosexual family rights since gay adoption was sanctioned.

It will prevent fertility clinics from turning away lesbians and single women because their children will not have a father or male role model. While the current law does not block such therapy, it is sometimes used to justify refusals

I've stated rumours of the impending death of Britain's society (or what's left of it) several times before, and clearly these rumours were not exaggerated.

It's bad enough that a bunch of Marxist twats have formally declared fathers to be all but worthless, but on top of that there's the hypocrisy; is Child Support going to be abolished? If they and their 'supportive parenting' is not needed, are fathers who are absent from their children's lives - voluntarily or otherwise - going to be let off the hook for Child Support? No, of course not. Fuck 'em, squeeze 'em for every penny they've got. They don't mean shit save for what funds they've got to steal for women's benefit.

Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, said that the current law was a “practical impediment” to lesbian couples seeking fertility treatment and that it was right to replace it.

It was a "practical impediment" for a good reason you moron; to prevent it! To prevent man-hating lezzers from getting to have children, who anyone but a Marxist twit would realise would have an upbringing somewhat less supportive, stable and above all normal than a child raised by his/her mother and father.

The legislation was “fair, it offers equitable access and it recognises the complexities of the Britain we live in today,” she said.

I suppose one could describe modern-day Britain as complex.

'Crime-ridden', 'over-taxed', 'Marxist', 'Orwellian', 'shit' and 'fucking doomed' are other descriptions one could employ, due in large part to feminism/socialism and it's total trashing of the society it took so long to build.

“What counts is the quality of parenting.”

And here was me thinking that the best quality of parenting a child could receive would be from the child's parents, not some dumb single career-gal or a rug-muncher and her dyke 'wife' and some anonymous guy who wanked into a jar in exchange for some beer money who'll never know (or probably care) if his cock-snot ever made a baby or not.

Thursday, 15 May 2008

At least this article - one of many along the same lines that crop up recently - has the decency to be honest; she wants men to go back to doing the dirty work for women, something we don't want/have to do under the silly sexual-equality rules women themselves imposed.

Us men will be whatever we like; whether that's being a video game addict, a macho man, a sensitive poet, a spaced out hippy, a blogger...whatever it is, if we want to be it, we'll be it, and sod whatever women want us to be at that particular moment in time. If there's any such thing as a 'Real Man' it's a guy who'll never even consider changing his attitude or lifestyle just to keep some whining bitch happy.

Besides, us men still long for nice decent women. Ones who aren't so boiling with misandry that they'll conclude an article with this little gem:

I tried not to laugh. MMs [Macho Men] can be unintentionally hilarious. The way to deal with a modern MM I realise, is to channel his energies into things you need him to do, like fix the car, and ignore the rest, or at least don't let him see you smirking. It might hurt his ego, poor lamb.

Once again, though, credit to her for at least being an honest female and admitting that the sole use women have for us men - sensitive ones or 'MMs' - is to manipulate us into doing stuff for them, whilst they simultaneously snicker and sneer at us.

A 'Macho Man' who does a woman's heavy-lifting out of chivalry is far more niave in his attitude towards women than the 'sensitive' poet who ignores women as a nuisance, because, regardless of how big his muscles are, or how many tattoos he's got, or how hairy his chest is, the former is still a mangina in wolf's clothing who seeks out and helps women but is too thick or too much of a Vangina-Worshipper to notice that his Masters are sniggering and sneering at him whilst he get's his hands dirty and breaks his balls.

If this woman wants to see a man who is genuinely insensitive she'd shit her pants because it'd give her a glimpse into women's lack of power when faced with a full-on assault of apathy and indifference from a man towards some whining single-mother trying to 'channel his energies' into doing whatever shit she can't be arsed doing. In fact, I dare say her own sons - lacking a father, for whatever reasons she doesn't deign to mention - will grow up to be such apathetic and indifferent men.

And I can't let this paragraph go without a mention:

I look at myself and my girlfriends, all so tired from being bravely, fabulously independent, and I wonder if, in wanting to show we are not silly damsels in distress, we have let men off the hook?

What the fuck is it with women and their constant need to throw shiny glitter and tinsel over their already vast collective egos?. We're so 'bravely, fabulously, indepe-' - shut the fuck up already. All they're doing is what men have done for generations - namely working and being independent; except at least us men don't declare ourselves fabulous when doing so because...well, we're not egotistical twats I guess.

The above quote of her's basically sums up her's - and many other women's - attitude towards equality:

Well, we can be independent, and do things for ourselves...but we'd rather not. It's hard work. Boo-hoo, come and save us silly damsels in distress. But don't think of us as damsels in distress or we'll kick you in the nuts you chauvanistic pig!

To summarise: a man who does traditional male duties like change the oil, put up shelves and does all the breadwinning is a good, traditional macho man - nay, a Real Man (TM) - but the second he asks his wife 'what's for dinner love?' then he's a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who is one more incidence of emotional-abuse away from having some divorce papers rammed up his left nostril.

To conclude the summary: if women are so bravely fabulous then they can bravely fix their own fabulous fucking cars.

Saturday, 10 May 2008

"I'm a thick cunt who got knocked up by a tattooed ex-convict thug and he's totally psycho and I don't know what to dooooo, should I kill the kid I was impregnated with ('Unbeknownst to me') and ditch the deceased's daddy, or what, please teh help!"

My advice:

Drop dead.

You shagged a thug, you got a baby-thug/thugette planted inside of you; deal with it. You don't like it? You reckon the kid's bad-boy dad isn't as responsible as he was exciting?

Boo-hoo!

Ya shoulda been more careful, toots!

Fuck you, fuck your whining, and fuck you thrice more for expecting sympathy for being a daft slapper. You and your bastard kid should die in a rain-soaked cardboard box under an overpass and be a warning to any other dumb cunt who thought it'd be fun to whore about and arrogantly assumed society would be there to offer sympathy and pick up the pieces when it all goes horribly - and predictably - wrong.

This thug-humping moron is a walking, sobbing, snivelling reminder of what happens when a Patriarchy is replaced by a Matriarchy.

Saturday, 3 May 2008

I was strolling around a department store the other day and noticed some fragrance for women by Armani, pledging that 40% of the vast profits to be had from each bottle of over-priced scented liquid would be sent to 'women and children' in Africa who have AIDs.

Hmmm. Just women and children? I suppose it was women's perfume. What about the men's then? That would have profits going to men with AIDs, right?

Nope. The men's aftershave of the fragrance likewise boasted that 40% of all sales profits go to 'women and children' with AIDs in Africa.

Er...where does that leave the men?

Up shit-creek with a completely buggered immune-system I guess. But, hey, it's only men, they're not as important as Women and teh Children! And what of the male children that have AIDs? Are they foresaken when they hit 16 and turn from children into men? I guess so.

I wouldn't buy such over-priced metrosexual puffy piss anyway, but it's still annoying that both the women and men's version of this brand boast of specifically helping only women and children, and make it clear men can go and fucking die for all they care.